General Election 2017

[Alan M]

BTW, it is generally agreed that a price cap will result in energy companies simply abolishing the lower offer rates, or ensuring that the gap between the SVR and the cheapest rate they offer is narrowed by raising the lower rates. That is namely the crux of the Tory proposal - that the gap between top and bottom rate is capped.
And the Miliband proposal allowed for prices to fall, just not to rise.
And if the Energy Minister can stand up in public and state that he's never switched because it is too much hassle then that is a shameful approach from the minister in the department which supposedly has been trying to encourage people to switch for the past x years.
(I switch almost every year, and I have never had any hassle BTW)

From the point of view of financial trading in the City of London yes of course the financial transaction tax would be opposed. Because it could lead to the migration of jobs in the City away from the UK with people seeking to avoid paying it. Even a Labour London Mayor has to stick up for what is the bedrock of the capital's economy. But when you consider that this is a measure which has been on the table in EU circles for several years, and that the main opposition to it came from the UK (because of threats to the financial sector and its importance to the UK economy), then it will probably resurface anyway once they've closed the door on us, so the financial jobs will not have many European places left to go to avoid paying it.

 

[Andy]

You can't seriously believe that a left-wing Labour govt would do that. Not even Michael Fallon in one of his wilder moments would suggest that one.

"The party is ruling out increases in the standard 20% rate of VAT, personal NI contributions and income tax rates for those earning less than £80,000."

It doesn't mention the Personal Allowance, and usually when a politician of any party does that, it usually means they plan to do it!

And it was well documented when the Tories kept raising the allowance that the far left weren't too keen on it, because it benefits everyone, and in the eyes of the far left, anything that benefits the rich is bad, even if it benefits the poorest, too.

 

[Nicki]

While we're talking about morals (well we were earlier), how completely amoral was it for a Tory government to sell our blood plasma supply to a foreign company? Not only amoral but borderline unethical too.

 

[Knutsfordian]

The financial transaction tax was only being tabled ion the EU as a means to extract huge sums of money out of London to overcome EU budget shortfalls with the other countries only making a ,modest contribution - its off the radar now we are going out and those countries want the Financial Services sector to migrate from London !! So cynical !!!

 

[Ben]

But what right have you to remove yet more income from those earning over £85K - they already lose around 50% of their income over £43K. So the doctors that everyone care so much around are going to get hammered along with the rest of the professional classes. The harder you work, the more you study, the more risks and responsibility you take - the more you get hammered to pay for others. What message does that send out to those professionals we need to bring into this country and the youngsters we want to be the leaders of tomorrow? This politics of envy and raiding the pay cheques of hard working professionals has to stop - or many will up sticks and make for foreign climbs.

I don't think it's a case of penalising people who work and study hard and take 'risks' to buy a house etc... but I do believe that those with higher incomes, who can afford to pay more into the system, should do so.
Like I said, we're only talking about 5% of all earners here. A policy that protects low and middle income earners is going to be popular with the public in my mind. It also beggars the question of - if you don't support raising income tax for those earning over £85k to fund public services, then where does the money come from? Under this government, it instead seems to be falling onto those with the least - the poorest and most vulnerable. Just look at the video of the disabled woman living on £100 a month and without a carer because of cuts to her benefits. Theresa May had no answer to her and instead went on about mental health, completely different to what this woman was going through. No understanding whatsoever and disgraceful to be honest.

As for the company taxes, meddle at your peril. Even the mayor of London is saying that the new financial transaction tax is a nonsense !

I'm not particularly supportive of this new tax as I think we need to be very careful not to drive the financial sector (wealth creators) out of Britain, especially with Brexit also threatening this. That said, I do believe in the principle of big companies paying their fair share and not all of them do that.

Public services and their costs need to reflect what can be afforded by everyone within reason, not what people think should be provided at the expense of others. That's not equality, its expediency.

There is nothing equal about people from the poorest areas having poor access to public services, and those from richer Tory-held councils, having those services on their doorstep. Public services have to be funded somehow and if it isn't coming from the pockets of the richest, then it's those at the bottom who will have to pick up the cost with cuts and council tax rises. That is the situation now and it's unequal and unfair but that's the Tories for you in a nutshell.

 

[Andy]

Ben. I agree, those who earn more should pay more. They already do. If you raise it anymore like Labour want to, then quite frankly, it's disgusting. The government have no right to take 50% of anyone's income. The governments job is to help people, not rob them blind!

When you take in to account:

Income Tax
NICs
Fuel Duty Tax
VAT
Road Tax
And many many more Taxs that quite frankly would be depressing to list.

The government already have 1 hand in our pockets, why would you want a Labour government that will put a second hand in your other pocket?!

 

[Knutsfordian]

This hiding behind "its only the top 5%" and they can afford it goes to the root of the politics of envy we have in this country. Successful hardworking people already pay their fair share of tax for the benefit of the many and now they are going to be penalised further. If those who rely on public services need them most, they should pay their share and at least make some contribution to the increased burden - not none at all. That's the only reason this will appeal to most labour voters - they don't have to pay a bean. People who succeed in life generally are not just lucky - they are hard working, highly skilled, worked hard at school and uni, carry responsibilities and make difficult decisions. Going forwards a large number of these folks will also be servicing massive student debts that they accumulated paying to get qualifications to get to where they are. They include some of the professions we hold dear for example doctors, dentists, vets, headteachers, accountants, lawyers etc. They are not just lucky idlers who happened on an £85K plus pay packet. If we want better services we all need to work harder, longer, improve our individual performance and productivity. We all need to do our best. Not expect improved service and benefits for no extra effort or contribution.

 

[Pete]

Surely in any society taxes should be distributed according to wealth? What is 'fair' is down to individual opinion. I think it's an unfortunate stereotype to say it comes from the politics of envy. It isn't envy on my part it's a belief that those who are able to pay more should. It isn't just down to hard work by the better paid people - many poor people work harder than the professionals and skilled workers you name but still remain poor. Not everyone has the IQ or skills to be at the top of the ladder.
My son is well educated, currently getting just above the minimum wage on a zero hours contract and working 0 - 15 hour shifts that end after midnight. I find it insulting that you expect him to work harder to save someone on £85,000 pa plus money.

 

[Alan M]

I have yet to see a cogent response to the "how do we fund social infrastructure if not from taxation?" question.

If you have values which include public funding of education, health, social care, roads, etc etc etc then you have to examine the other side of the coin and say how you propose to pay for them. Not just who should be exempted from paying. That applies to both (or all 3 if you include the Lib Dem proposal to add 1p to income tax across the board) sides of the argument.
If your values lean more towards the apocryphal Thatcherite "there is no such thing as society", then you will clearly prefer to cut all taxes and be perfectly happy to cut all public expenditure in return. I could for example say "I don't use schools so why should I pay for them?", but I don't. Instead I am all in favour of removing VAT exemption from private schools, for example. If the social enterprise which I run has to pay VAT and Corporation Tax, I don't see why a less "charitable" company like a private school shouldn't as well.

However, which side of the argument anyone prefers is a matter of individual opinion, conscience and choice.

 

[Knutsfordian]

Taxing other people's and company earnings and income is easy and its a cop out to keep making excuses. Young people are often at the sharp end of the jobs market and its really tough to make your way forwards, but that's what you have to do.

It says a lot for your thought process that you think by your son working harder he would SAVE someone on £85K some money! He isn't saving them anything, they are having their earned income forcibly reduced to support others when they are already making a significant contribution losing over 50% of their income with tax and NI over £43K. It's too easy to look at successful people and deride their success and put it down to IQ or skills - it takes dedication, hard work and perseverance to be successful and that's too easily overlooked.

 

[Pete]

Deriding? Where have I done that? Are you not able to discuss something without twisting other people's words round to make it appear they have said something else? Are you even sure of the definition of the word deriding?
Society depends to a large extent on having a sizeable pool of poorer people who can be manipulated into working for low wages and in recent times the vast growth of zero hours contracts and dependence on minimum wage keeps prices low and is increasingly getting closer to exploitation and financial benefits to those outside that group. The long term effects of exploiting one group are well documented through history.
I see no reason why people who have higher incomes through living in a country that provides them with the opportunity and education to enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world should not pay back some of that income for the overall good of the country.

 

[Knutsfordian]

Yes - treat with contempt - which is what you are doing. How else can you explain a complete willingness to put your hand in someone else's pocket ?

The question is not whether people who are better off should pay "some of that income" for the overall good, but to what extent. If a manifesto sets out to spend an additional £50billion, then the pain of that spending should be shared equally by individuals as far as possible and not borne by 5% of people. That isn't equality its just class warfare, expediency and ideology.

 

[Andy]

Cut income tax, cut VAT - get people spending, get the economy growing and jobs being created. Thats a fair society.

Hammering people who earn over £80k is not a fair society. Theses people are Doctors and Head Teachers. These are people who have worked hard all their life and contributed so much to society. It's not a fair society to hammer.

It's not someones who's worked hard all their life's job to fund Corbyn's fantasy land vanity projects.

And by Vanity projects i mean Nationalisation of the Energy sector. No where in their Manifesto is there the £40 Billion pounds for the National grid.

That doesn't take in to account the money for plants currently under construction... £10 Billion at Moorside, £28 Billion (est) at Hinckley Point and more.

They want to spend this country in to oblivion. It's quite concerning.

 

[Nicki]

How about asking the 5% what they think?

Here's a thought - we could have a national vote. Let's, for arguments sake call it "an election"...

What would Tory sympathisers do if Labour had come up with a manifesto they loved? Deary me.

 

[Ben]

This hiding behind "its only the top 5%" and they can afford it goes to the root of the politics of envy we have in this country. Successful hardworking people already pay their fair share of tax for the benefit of the many and now they are going to be penalised further. If those who rely on public services need them most, they should pay their share and at least make some contribution to the increased burden - not none at all.

It's not the politics of envy at all. I don't envy those who work hard and earn a lot of money. I simply believe that those with the broadest shoulders should contribute more to the system. I agree that everyone who can should pay their fair share to public services (according to different tax bands), but what about those on benefits and struggling to get by, should they also? Let's also remember that council tax is going up by as much as 4.5% in some areas, yet cuts are being made to services at the same time. Where is the fairness and equality in that?

That's the only reason this will appeal to most labour voters - they don't have to pay a bean. People who succeed in life generally are not just lucky - they are hard working, highly skilled, worked hard at school and uni, carry responsibilities and make difficult decisions. Going forwards a large number of these folks will also be servicing massive student debts that they accumulated paying to get qualifications to get to where they are. They include some of the professions we hold dear for example doctors, dentists, vets, headteachers, accountants, lawyers etc. They are not just lucky idlers who happened on an £85K plus pay packet. If we want better services we all need to work harder, longer, improve our individual performance and productivity. We all need to do our best. Not expect improved service and benefits for no extra effort or contribution.

You seem to be assuming that those who earn less than £85k somehow don't work as hard. I know people on £20k who can barely afford to get by with rent to pay, a car to finance, and all those other bills - council tax, water, gas, electricity and student debts. They have worked hard, studied hard and got themselves a decent job, yet are still struggling to get by. And that is someone on £20k, just imagine how difficult it is for someone on say £10k or on benefits when their universal credit, tax credits etc... are being cut!

The Tories also always bang on about how they've created millions of jobs, but how many of these are low-paid and zero-hour contracts which are on the rise? So there are plenty of people who work hard on all income scales. The Tories also fail to understand that there's a cost of living crisis and how to address that. They are doing nothing to help the just about managing people they claim to want to help. I believe in a society where wealth is redistributed to all people, not just given to those at the top in the belief that it will somehow trickle down to everyone else. It's been tried and failed and the Tories still insist on doing it.

 

[Pete]

Contempt? On this occasion i am left wondering once again if you know the meaning of the word you are using? I have no dislike nor lack of respect for the 'top 5%' and you will find no evidence of it above. Why would i feel that way? It appears that as soon as someone expresses a view other than your own you feel the need to twist and manipulate what is said which is a shame in what is a sensible discussion on the forum.
As I said before I do not see it as unreasonable to expect those on higher incomes to pay something extra and that what is seen as 'fair' will vary from person to person.

 

[Nicki]

Just seen an interesting tweet saying that all nurses earning over £80k will leave the country if Labour get in.

Oh dear - so who exactly is out of touch here? I'm still wiping beer splatters off my TV.

Also, got to love it when everyday Joes tell us how other people will behave. If Labour get in then this WILL happen, that WILL happen, EVERYbody WILL do this, EVERYbody WILL do that. It WILL be a disaster.

People don't half talk sh*t at times.

 

[Andy]

Just seen an interesting tweet saying that all nurses earning over £80k will leave the country if Labour get in.

Oh dear - so who exactly is out of touch here? I'm still wiping beer splatters off my TV.

Also, got to love it when everyday Joes tell us how other people will behave. If Labour get in then this WILL happen, that WILL happen, EVERYbody WILL do this, EVERYbody WILL do that. It WILL be a disaster.

People don't half talk sh*t at times.

People also say "If the Tories get in then this WILL happen, that WILL happen, EVERYbody WILL do this, EVERYbody WILL do that. It WILL be a disaster."

 

[Nicki]

And they are just as ill-informed.

Lots of people seem to think they're the latest greatest thing in social and political commentary.

 

[Andy]

They just need to learn that the word "could" isn't always interchangeable with "will"